Meeting minutes
<Fazio> brb
New Business
Jeff: Worksheet / document still out of alignment. which should be addressed.
do we have the right worksheet linked to the released?
janina: look at the publication announcements and then we need to check and then we need to make an errata with the updates. is the TR and the spreadsheet that links to.
Jeff: there were a lot of changes to the spreadsheet changes, but maybe it was not checked.
… number of issues that need to be resolved to be in 100% sync.
Fazio: we also have a number of editorial issues still to be addressed.
janina: we can fix any editorial errors. how many jeff?
Jeff: communications dimensions that were a number of errors, headers of sub-sections looked like proofpoints.
janina: how many would you suspect? #?
Jeff: difficult to say. the formatting of the spreadsheet etc.
janina: Yes we can fix it, give us a punch list. No changes to the narrative. we can then put it at the same URI
… that would be an action item.
Fazio: Jeff if you can take that on.
Charles: the Status field width is way to wide.
Jeff: in my email it shows the issues I noticed. Some of that characterizes that. I will start to work on it.
Fazio: Thanks.
Mark_Miller: I put the LM meeting notes to match with HubSpot. I think I solved that. I should have HubSpot in one spot to query against.
… SusiPallero will work with with Mark on this.
janina: we published, how we will evaluate our milestones, additional considerations in the consensus process. Let get us to a FPWD by CSUN.
… if there is a new PWD that is what will be presented on at CSUN 2026
Fazio: We should be able to get the remaining editorial issues addressed by then. The scoring issue we think we addressed in the updated description, defined in metrics and goals.
janina: that sounds reasonable goal.
… yes this would be a new FPWD of the new version 1.1, or 2.0 etc. Should be a contained set of goals. We should have been more careful in our editorial work. we will need to explain why we want to leave the metrics to organizations instead of us providing them.
… we need an overview of what the next version is, and work on our editorial issues, and this scoring / metric evaluation approach.
GitHub Issue #358 Repetition proof point in 2.5.2.2.1 & 2.5.2.2.4
<Fazio> w3c/
<gb> Issue 358 Repetition proof point in 2.5.2.2.1 & 2.5.2.2.4 (by zwiastunsw)
Fazio: this is true.
<Neha> +1
SusiPallero: both are important, both should include people with disabilities, maybe just rewritten.
Fazio: user experience goes beyond, which is different than user Research.
… it goes beyond.
… I am ok with deleting User experience going beyond being accessible. going the extra mile.
Neha: what he is pointing out, under user Experience / Research have the exact same 2 bullet points.
Fazio: Stacy pointed out that we already discussed this.
<Fazio> I am in favor of deleting 3.2.2.4 User Experience
Stacy, we changed this from Planning and Design to User Research. We built on that for User Experience.
Neha, we need to document this in the github issue.
Jeff, I agree we need to get rid of that to 3.2.2.1 to User Experience instead of Research.
Stacy, I disagree these are completely different things.
Jeff what about Research / Experience
Mark_Miller: these are different things.
Fazio: I agree with you.
Mark_Miller: do we need to clarify this with additional text?
Fazio: user research could have user experience
Stacy: everything in the dev life cycle could be part of user experience.
Fazio: you conduct user research you don't conduct user experience.
Jeff: if you take out the bullet: forms, releases, instructions, or other materials are accessible
Stacy: I wouldn't remove that.
Jeff: I agree with deleting 3.2.2.4 User Experience
<Fazio> delete user experienceq?
janina: I don't think we are working on an errata. but this would be working on the next version.
… I am not worried if some point is repeated in different categories.
… if we have proofpoints duplicated this is fine for now. I think we are talking about the next version.
Fazio: I think we are talking about moving fwd to the next version 1.1 get it going.
SusiPallero: I agree with Janina and Suzi, maybe we can remove it an develop it more.
Fazio: give more detail to proofpoints in another issue.
Mark_Miller: the issue we have the two mixed up. user experience / research, and we need to make sure the experience is really about the user's experience not the research.
Fazio: we don't need user experience because its the outcome.
Mark_Miller: you include people with disabilities to validate the user experience is favorable. User Research gains the information. the User Experience is what is the actual experience after implemented.
… I may have full intention to include the user research from people with disabilities but this is validating the user experience by people with disabilities. These are very different but connected and we mixed them up in the definitions. Thats why we have confusion.
Fazio: we should keep user Experience but maybe called User Experience Design.
… any objections to User Experience Design?
… lets table that then, since it would also need to pull from other sections.
Stacy: I have missed some conversations. I am happy to work with Suzi to come up with a new suggestion.
SusiPallero: When we refer to User Experience it is correct to UX Design.
Fazio: Do we really need to include User Experience Design.
Mark_Miller: we need to include new issues, any open issue is now in this new LM, if you give me a gmail address. I can give a demo next week. If you send me a query against it I can do that, there is a lot of things we could ask it.